[MD] Principled Person Level

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Gene M <boredandunstable at gmail.com>:

> Platt:
> 
> > How does morality about "we" apply to the inorganic and biological
> > levels? I doubt if the individual photon cares about his fellow photons
> > or anything other than itself for that matter. Nor does an individual
> > blade of grass exhibit any moral choice regarding his next door
> > neighbor.
> 
> 
> So you're saying photons have a self? An interesting tact for you to take,
> but sure! I'll agree with that.

Are you saying that a photon is aware of itself? I said I doubt a photon cares
about his fellow photons precisely because a photon doesn't "care" about anything.
Dynamic morality doesn't apply to that level or to the next level up. Both
are static levels whose values are forever trapped in the laws of Nature.

> Platt:
> 
> > Yes, this is the most telling answer to the question. However, Pirsig
> > laments the "dissipation of these values" (optimism, belief in the
> > future, their codes of craftsmanship and labor and thrift and self-
> > discipline), not only acknowledging the existence of a "self" but also
> > suggesting the nation would do well to focus on recapturing such values
> > if it is to reverse its current trend of slouching towards Gomorrah. I
> > agree.
> 
> 
> Nice job on this one platt! Not only did you make a statement and attribute
> it to pirsig with no back-up, but then it conveniently ended up proving your
> point! That was certainly a lucky turn of events.

Are you saying Pirsig didn't write "dissipation of these values?" and "self-
discipline?" 

> Platt:
> 
> > Pirisg would agree, and he credits Victorians with just such
> > creativity: "What we tend to forget is that, unlike the European
> > aristocrats they aped, the American Victorians were a very creative
> > people."
> >
> > Perhaps in referring to Victorians we should take a page from Pirsig
> > and distinguish between Europeans and Americans. :-)
> 
> 
> Why must you always pick half a point to argue? Oh right, because it's the
> half that proves you right.

No. Because many on this sight only present half of what Pirsig said to prove they
are right. I'm just providing a fair and balanced view of his thoughts.

> Pirsig did indeed credit victorian's with a lot of creativity, but he also
> credited them with a complete failure of creativity of another sort. They
> had no Social creativity, they just aped what they thought of the europeans.
> Intellectually they were creative, socially and biologically they were
> completely stuck, without an In for DQ. Which is why they're society failed,
> but their ideas live on.
> 
> See that, see the ideas seperate from the individual. Seperate from the
> society in fact.

Many here are of the opinion that Victorian values of self-reliance and
self-responsibility are social values. These were not aped from Europeans. They are
distinctly American values, made permanent by American intellectual's elevation of
the individual above the power of society as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the
U.S.Constitution. As for ideas being separate from the individual, since you wrote
about them and I read what you wrote, individuals are involved. Just as in Pirsig's
philosphy you can't separate the individual from the levels, you can't separate ideas
from individuals.

Platt


  






-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/